The Israel Defense Forces on Thursday issued a detailed rebuttal of claims made in the documentary “NAZA,” accusing its filmmakers of presenting a “distorted, misleading and disingenuous” account of how the military selects and strikes targets in the Gaza Strip.
The documentary features anonymous testimony from 24 Israeli military and intelligence personnel and alleges that the IDF used intelligence systems and artificial intelligence in ways that contributed to civilian deaths in Gaza. Interviewees also allege that the military deliberately targeted civilians and permitted large numbers of civilian casualties in attacks on terrorist operatives.
The IDF rejected those allegations, saying the film’s narrative “is based on substantial factual errors stemming from manipulative misrepresentations of reality.”
According to the military, binding IDF directives distinguish between terrorists and uninvolved civilians, prohibit deliberately targeting civilians and require commanders to minimize the risk of civilian harm to the greatest extent feasible.
The IDF said it had never planned, approved or carried out a strike in Gaza in which 500 civilians, or anything approaching that number, were expected to be killed, contrary to
It also rejected claims that artificial intelligence independently selects targets for attack.
“Artificial intelligence has never independently selected targets to strike in the IDF,” the military said.
According to the IDF, authorized intelligence officers identify potential targets, relevant professionals plan strikes, and operational commanders make the final decision on whether to attack.
IDF rejects claims about ‘Lavender’
The military also disputed the film’s characterization of “Lavender,” an artificial intelligence-assisted system used by Israeli intelligence.
“‘Lavender’ is not a database of targets approved to strike, but a database that assists intelligence analysts,” the IDF said.
The military denied that its rules established automatic civilian-casualty thresholds, including claims cited in the film that strikes against junior terrorists could automatically be approved when 20 civilians were at risk, or that 200 civilians could be endangered in an attack on a senior commander.
The IDF also rejected the contention that once civilians were warned to evacuate an area, troops were free to strike without considering those who remained.
The military said assessments of possible civilian casualties remain part of the targeting process after evacuation warnings have been issued.
The IDF further rejected claims that it failed to examine the aftermath of strikes, saying it had reviewed hundreds of incidents during the war, including cases involving unintended civilian casualties, to determine what happened and draw operational lessons.
It acknowledged that mistakes occurred during complex combat operations and said suspected violations of Israeli or international law are examined and, when warranted, can lead to disciplinary measures or criminal investigations.
‘Only limited, initial stages’
One of the documentary’s fundamental shortcomings, according to the Israeli military, was its reliance on intelligence personnel who were familiar with only part of the targeting process.
The interviewees described as having served in intelligence roles “usually refer to only limited, initial stages dealing with intelligence, rather than the much broader process of planning and approving strikes,” according to the IDF.
The documentary largely omitted the roles of operational planners, civilian-harm mitigation specialists, legal advisers and commanders who ultimately approve or reject strikes, according to the military.
It said such procedures have resulted in demands for additional intelligence, changes to attack plans, the selection of different weapons and the cancellation of strikes because of the danger to civilians.
The military also accused the filmmakers of failing to provide sufficient context about the war, including the Hamas massacre in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and Hamas’s use of civilian areas for military purposes.
It said the film omitted measures employed by the IDF to minimize civilian casualties, including evacuation warnings, the selection of munitions, changes to strike plans and the facilitation of humanitarian aid.
‘Collateral damage’
The IDF also disputed the documentary’s treatment of the term “collateral damage.”
“NAZA” is derived from the Hebrew acronym for “nezek agavi,” or collateral damage.
Assessing the expected incidental harm to civilians from an attack on a military target is required under international law and is intended to help commanders determine whether an attack is lawful and whether additional precautions are necessary, noted the IDF.
The film instead portrays the process of estimating potential civilian harm as evidence of indifference to civilian lives, the statement continued.
The military acknowledged the moral burden described by some of the film’s interviewees.
“Decisions that may cost civilian lives are among the hardest soldiers and commanders face, and the IDF expects its soldiers to feel that weight and act accordingly,” it said.
However, it added, that moral burden does not in itself demonstrate that a decision was unlawful.
The IDF accused the filmmakers of using manipulative editing, omitting relevant context and making “irresponsible allusions to historical atrocities.”
It said it remained open to “genuine criticism” and to examining substantiated allegations of misconduct.
The military also noted that the filmmakers had not submitted their allegations to the IDF for examination and response before the documentary was released, and had not provided the military with a copy after release, despite requests.
The IDF said its detailed response was therefore prepared based on an account provided by a representative who attended a public screening, along with other publicly available accounts.
“NAZA,” directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor and produced by The Guardian, received a Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival.
